David Bell: The problem with the future is that there are no 'facts', just predictions

On the eve of the EU referendum, David Bell sorts what we know from what we can only surmise. 
 
Tomorrow, we will vote on whether the UK should leave the EU. This is a momentous decision which will affect both current and future generations living on these islands
 
A recurrent theme has been the lack of “facts” to help voters decide. The problem with the future is that there are no “facts”, just predictions. Although the campaigns might try to persuade us otherwise, no-one knows whether the UK can reduce immigration and cut trade deals, or whether the UK economy will flourish or founder outside the EU. What we can do is to assess the quality of the arguments, making allowance for the track record and the objectivity of those trying to predict the effects of Brexit.
 
As far as Scotland is concerned, as with the UK as a whole, the economic implications of leaving the EU are unknown. However, we do know some facts about the interaction of the Scottish economy with the EU, which may be worth bearing in mind.
 
First, Scotland’s GDP per head is close to the EU average. Income per head in Romania and Latvia is about half of that in Scotland, so Scotland will remain an attractive destination inside or outside the EU. Controlling migration from other EU countries would almost certainly require the establishment of a ’hard‘ border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic, which might have implications for Scotland.
 
Scotland’s unemployment rate is well below the EU average, which again makes it an attractive economy for migrants. Historically high levels of migration from other parts of Europe to Scotland during the last decade have not led to higher levels of unemployment. At the aggregate level, there is no evidence that the inflow of migrants has reduced opportunities for natives.
 
At the 2011 Census, EU migrants made up 2.5% of Scotland’s population and 4.4% of the population of England and Wales. Due to their greater numbers, migrants exert more pressure on public services in England and Wales than in Scotland. However, migrants also pay taxes which offset the cost of the public services they use, a point that has been almost absent from the debate. Bottlenecks in public service provision, such as access to school places, may be the result of failing to prioritise areas with high concentration of migrants.
 
Scotland’s export trade is not particularly focused on the EU. Its major single country market is the USA: Scotland exports more than twice as much to the USA than it does to Germany. And export growth to the EU has been negligible since the financial crisis of 2008-09. In contrast, exports to the rest of the world have been growing steadily, but not as fast as Scotland’s exports to the rest of the UK, which account for 64% of Scotland’s exports.
 
Current trading patterns may not necessarily be a good guide to the future, but in the short to medium term, a huge reorientation of trade is unlikely. Scotland will continue to depend on its exports of services (including tourism and finance), of food and drink, and of some high-tech goods. It will also have to comply with the regulations demanded by its export markets, which may include its product, environmental and labour standards. Negotiations may well be lengthy: the prolonged difficulties associated with exporting haggis to the US illustrate the difficulties that UK trade negotiators will face.
 
Lastly, our net contribution. Much has been made of the supposed contribution of £350m per week that the UK pays to the EU. This is a gross figure which does not take into account the £3.8 billion rebate that the UK receives and the £5.1 billion that is spent on farm payments, structural funds and science and technology support. Scotland is now too rich to receive the intensive EU support that it did in the past: most of the structural funds now go to Eastern Europe and Mediterranean countries. Scotland’s net annual payment to the EU, of around £340m is equivalent to 0.2 per cent of Scottish GDP. This implies that on average, Scots pay around £64 per year for EU membership. Even a small decline in exports would offset the cash benefits of not making this contribution to the EU budget.
 
There is almost a complete consensus among economists and external organisations that the short run effects of Brexit will be harmful to the UK economy. Given our trading links to the rest of the UK, there is no reason to believe that Scotland would be isolated from this harm. But these are “predictions” rather than “facts” and economic forecasts are prone to error.
 
Voters must make their choice on Thursday with only partial information on what Brexit will entail. This may help “remain”. Irrespective of the objective arguments, the status quo often prevails in referendums if voters believe messages that the alternative is risky and/or unclear.
 

Comments policy

All comments posted on the site via Disqus are automatically published. Additionally comments are sent to moderators for checking and removal if necessary. We encourage open debate and real time commenting on the website. The Centre on Constitutional Change cannot be held responsible for any content posted by users. Any complaints about comments on the site should be sent to info@centreonconstitutionalchange.ac.uk

David Bell's picture
post by David Bell
University of Stirling
22nd June 2016
Filed under:

Latest blogs

  • 19th February 2019

    Over the course of the UK’s preparations for withdrawing from the EU, the issue of the UK’s own internal market has emerged as an issue of concern, and one that has the potentially significant consequences for devolution. Dr Jo Hunt of Cardiff University examines the implications.

  • 12th February 2019

    CCC Fellow Professor Daniel Wincott of Cardiff University examines how Brexit processes have already reshaped territorial politics in the UK and changed its territorial constitution.

  • 7th February 2019

    The future of agriculture policy across the United Kingdom after Brexit is uncertain and risky, according to a new paper by Professor Michael Keating of the Centre on Constitutional Change. Reforms of the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy over recent years have shifted the emphasis from farming to the broader concept of rural policy. As member states have gained more discretion in applying policy, the nations of the UK have also diverged, according to local conditions and preferences.

  • 4th February 2019

    In our latest report for the "Repatriation of Competences: Implications for Devolution" project, Professor Nicola McEwen and Dr Alexandra Remond examine how, in the longer term, Brexit poses significant risks for the climate and energy ambitions of the devolved nations. These include the loss of European Structural and Investment Funds targeted at climate and low carbon energy policies, from which the devolved territories have benefited disproportionately. European Investment Bank loan funding, which has financed high risk renewables projects, especially in Scotland, may also no longer be as accessible, while future access to research and innovation funding remains uncertain. The removal of the EU policy framework, which has incentivised the low carbon ambitions of the devolved nations may also result in lost opportunities.

  • 1st February 2019

    The outcome of the various Commons votes this week left certain only that the Government would either secure an amended deal and put it to a meaningful vote on Wednesday 13 February, or in the overwhelmingly likely absence of this make a further statement that day and table another amendable motion for the following day, the Groundhog Day that may lead to a ‘St Valentine’s Day Massacre’ for one side or the other. Richard Parry assesses the further two-week pause in parliamentary action on Brexit

Read More Posts